The consequences of 'The conservative shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology'

America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate....

Some of the smartest and most sophisticated people I know—canny investors, erudite authors—sincerely and passionately believe that President Barack Obama has gone far beyond conventional American liberalism and is willfully and relentlessly driving the United States down the road to socialism. No counterevidence will dissuade them from this belief: not record-high corporate profits, not almost 500,000 job losses in the public sector, not the lowest tax rates since the Truman administration. It is not easy to fit this belief alongside the equally strongly held belief that the president is a pitiful, bumbling amateur, dazed and overwhelmed by a job too big for him—and yet that is done too....

Outside this alternative reality [conservative talk radio and the Fox News Channel], the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy ­errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action ­phony doomed to inevitable defeat....

it’s one thing to point out (accurately) that President Obama’s stimulus plan was mostly a compilation of antique Democratic wish lists, and quite another to argue that the correct response to the worst collapse since the thirties is to wait for the economy to get better on its own. It’s one thing to worry (wisely) about the long-term trend in government spending, and another to demand big, immediate cuts when 25 million are out of full-time work and the government can borrow for ten years at 2 percent....

The conservative shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology has ominous real-world consequences for American society. The American system of government can’t work if the two sides wage all-out war upon each other.

Posted at 02:58:27 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Frum will find himself frozen out even more among the conservative faction (formerly known as the extreme right wing) for daring to say something that makes sense.

David Frum summed it up with a great three-word phrase, "Fantasy-based ideology." What comes through, and I have seen it on this Change of Subject blog, is the amount of fantasy involved.in the perception of Obama and liberalism in general.

I recall in years past, watching William Buckley and George Will (when he still had a brain), how there could be harsh fault finding of the Democrats, but yet the fault finding was grounded in reality. There was no imaginating qualities about an opponent that did not exist.

I foresee a time when the most well-known conservative "thought leaders" disavow Parker as one of their own - due to her rational columns. It's funny, is it not, how far right the far right has veered, taking with it the rest of those who affiliate themselves with the term "conservative"? The Hannity/Fox/Limbaugh/Coulter/Krauthammer/Kristol echo chamber seems to have permanently skewed the definition of what constitutes a "conservative" - at least in in the eyes of the "thought leader" conservatives. This phenomenon, together with the purity tests imposed by the Tea Party activists, is the reason why the Republican field of candidates is as a "robust" as it is. It may very well be that despite the amount of disaffection Obama has generated with his hard core base, he may still win re-election - even with the economy is such bad shape.

"The conservative shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology has ominous real-world consequences for American society."

This is what the far right doesn't get, if they elect their candidates and truly were able to run government based on today's extreme conservative agenda, it would start a revolution that would destroy their movement forever. Their idea of govenrment only benefits those at the higher end, what about the rest of the country?

When did David Frum lose touch with reality? It occurred some time before this "analysis," which is littered with straw-men and distracts from what could be a good point about how Obama is perceived among conservatives. I'll agree with Frum on one thing - it's impossible to simultaneously believe that Obama is capable of leading us into socialism and that he's a hopelessly bumbling amateur. I believe that only the latter is true.

The problem with Frum has nothing to do with his conservatism, or whatever he considers himself, but that the direction he's decided to take his punditry looks contrived. It seems to me that he has made the business decision that he's going to be what Andrew Sullivan used to be - i.e., the conservative who boldly takes on other conservatives. That's fine except he's nowhere near as talented as Sullivan was nor as bold. Sullivan at least challenged you intellectually. Frum isn't up to the task and a lot of his columns are repetitive.

Before anyone responds with a variation of "I knew you would disavow him, you're so predictable," let me point out that I believe there is a lot of bad conservative writing (Ann Coulter comes to mind), bad liberal writing, and bad moderate writing. I don't agree with Kathleen Parker all of the time but her writing seems honest and often is interesting. I'm not so sure that Frum's direction doesn't have more to do with finding a niche rather than honestly conveying a coherent set of views.

I also find it telling that Frum wants a "compassionate" alternative to Obama's plans. Anyone remember how well compassionate conservatism went over for Frum's old boss? Does anyone on the right or the left know what compassionate conservative means or how it differs from using the government as a means of promoting a conservative agenda rather than reducing its size?

ZORN REPLY -- You don't agree. I get that. What strawmen are you talking about? The idea behind compassionate conservatism is that conservatives seem to feel the need to remind people that they really do give a crap about the poor, that they really do understand the malignant effects of racism and are determined to help its victims overcome that. That they're not just economic Darwinists who think that "take a bath and get a job" is the answer to economic woes. That they don't distrust, fear and even hate those who are different from themselves -- gay people, atheists, Muslims, etc. That kind of thing. I suppose it's the opposite side of the coin of "pragmatic liberals." Don't tell me you don't understand that.

" it's impossible to simultaneously believe that Obama is capable of leading us into socialism and that he's a hopelessly bumbling amateur. I believe that only the latter is true."

But he could be someone who wants to lead us into socialism but is too much of a bumbling amateur to be able to do it. What do you think he would do if he were not constrained by the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats?

Yes he could be but I wouldn't quite go that far. Obama has been restrained to some extent; no doubt about that. However, there are moves that he's made that convince me that he's more of a standard issue liberal than a socialist, and one who grasps the reality of some very important issues (e.g., not closing Gitmo).

@Wendy C,

Oh, c'mon that line is so 2001. The problem with compassionate conservatism as a brand is that it forces you to make the argument that regular conservatism isn't compassionate. Setting aside whether that's true or not, it's the reason I always thought it was such a stupid term from a strategic perspective.

@Jimmy G. Kind of a stretch to dismiss the 1st 7 years of Reagan. Reaching pretty hard when you use 1988 to 1993 as under Reagan. Then again, in your mind, 9/11 happened under Clinton, and the economy crashed on Obamas watch, I would imagine. When you make stuff up, run with it.

I am not making anything up. You can verify what I said in the document Joseph Finn posted. Reagan began working to cut taxes as soon as he came in to office and, by the time he left, he had lowered the top rate from 70% to 28%. As I said, it is right there in the document that was posted. Don't accuse me of making stuff up!

What drives me nuts about the way the media cover taxes as if the federal rate is all we pay. It is partly because so many reporters are simple-minded and mathematically illiterate--and don't actually understand their own tax situation. My local taxes and fees are constantly going up; property tax has TRIPLED in 10 years. City of Chicago and the county just keep cranking them up. Meanwhile, our incomes have barely budged. It is not really relevant whether it is the IRS or my local school board is collecting. Property taxes are especially egregious, because no on cares whether you have made a dime of income or not: They still want it. We just had a giant increase in the state rate, and we are arguing about rather piddly increases in the federal. Give me some stability in my local taxes, and I'll buy into a couple more points in the federal rate.

Most reporters do not understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenue. If tax revenue goes down, they say tax rates went down (even if tax rates did not go down at all). I am rather surprised that David Frum would make that mistake. I thought he was smarter than that.

Quotidian - Illinois has historically - and is currently - one of the lowest taxed states in the country. In addition, Chicago has some of the lowest property taxes not only in Illinois, but in the country.

True, the rate has been going up, but it is still nowhere where it would be if you lived in California or New York...or even in a state that borders Illinois, such as Indiana, Wisconsin, or Missouri.

The tax rates are so favorable here, Illinois came in very favorably in "Site Selection" Magazine's study of places favorable to do business in the country.

@Quotidian,,, You are correct. And, state and local property taxes across the country exploded when Reagan cut payments to the states. Since then, property taxes have skyrocketed. That is when it started. Trickle the taxes down to state, then local levels.

Anyone who affiliates him/herself with a party whose presidential candidate debates are barely distinguishable from "Saturday Night Live" skits had better be careful about calling the leaders on the other side "bumbling."

Let's go over this again. When Reagan came to office, the top tax rate was 70% and when he left, it was 28%. Yet your friends at Think Progress describe him as a "serial tax raiser." I would say that Think Progress -- and anyone who believes the swill it puts out -- are embracing a fantasy-based ideology.

T.P. paints a grim picture of the economy under Reaganomics but the American voters in 1984 gave Reagan a historic, virtually unprecedented re-election victory. He won 49 states and the reason was mostly the economy. I wonder how Think Progress explains that!

@ Jimmy G. I disagree. Nixon won reelection by about the same rate as Reagan. How did that work out? Reagan rised taxes 11 times. (follow the link) G.H.W. Bush was also forced to raise taxes. He knew the fact that the budget deficit that TRIPLED under Reagan was unsustainable. So he signed a bill raising taxes. Cost him an election. (read my lips) These days, the lightweights in Congress that sign on with Grover are too chicken to do what is called for. 11 times Reagan allowed taxes to be raised, while the deficit tripled.

Those who claim that local property tax rates are low must be living in a shack.

My property taxes are over 3% of the home's assessed value (which itself is likely inflated). This is EXTREMELY high compared to most of the nation.

I'm amazed that people are not outraged that total tax levies (federal, state, property, sales) are 40-50% for many people. That doesn't even count FICA, Medicare, or Medicaid. And yet we're told that's not enough!

But Nixon faced a ridiculous candidate named George McGovern whom any Republican could have beaten under any conditions. Reagan faced a much more plausible candidate, former Vice President Mondale. The fact that Reagan won in such a blowout was proof that the public was happy with the economy.

"Reagan raised taxes 11 times."

I suppose one could write a history of World War II as follows: "In 1944, Roosevelt sent the US Army to invade Europe. The next year, Roosevelt died and Truman took over and began withdrawing the troops." That would technically be true but it leaves out so many facts as to be a gross distortion. Calling Reagan a tax raiser is also a gross distortion that does not tell the full story.

Regarding "compromise," Rick Santelli gave a good analogy on CNBC today:

Let's say your significant other increased his or her spending 25-50%, leaving the family with a big budget deficit. She then looks at you and says, "you should get a second job." Isn't it reasonable to first say, "STOP SPENDING"?

Brian, would he or she ask that the spouse stop buying food or clothing for the kids? Or repair the roof when it leaks? Not unlike the Fed Govt having to spend to feed people who lost their jobs, and repair New Orleans or the East Coast after the hurricanes, I think. There is belt tightening to be done, I'm sure, but at some point there are expenditures that in a better economy the government would not have to make.

A quick trip to Google will tell you what party is more generous in terms of donations and contributions, as for your constant slamming of conservatives, I keep saying you should be nice to us, after all, we pay for everything you get for free.

Frum steps onto less than solid ground when he effectively presents government spending/stimuli as the only alternative to the do-nothing approach to the current economic slump.

(Using government spending as an economic fix is an idea that comes from a theory that from the start had no foundation in reality and never gained any validation in use. But I am not going to spend time on that, except ask anyone here who wants to defend it to describe the mechanism of how it works, accounting for the fact that the resources spent have to come from somewhere.)

The government definitely has a role to play in fixing the mess it caused in the first place through its entanglement with the financial industry. In a stable legal, monetary and political environment, the economy can right itself (because the economy is us, everyone who is trying to better themselves and their family by producing something of value for others). But it has a much better chance of doing so quicker and in a sustained fashion (as opposed to having another bubble bust in a couple years), if the financial industry - the vascular system of the economy - operates under true market rather than crony capitalism conditions.

Regrettably, I see very little effort in that realm by conservatives. Perhaps because they have too many crony capitalism friends (almost by definition, business lobbying efforts tend to be towards crony capitalism). The liberals do make noise about reforming the financial industry. But their idea of the reform is an even tighter entanglement of the industry with the government, which only sets us up for more and new forms of financial mischief and malfeasance.

Dienne is partially right: the war being waged is not primarily between the lawmakers (although there is that too, as they too pursue their individual goals). But the main war is waged people (more typically in groups) trying to get something out of other people by force, rather than by exchange. And it is done under whatever cover is convenient, conservatism, liberalism, religion, environmentalism, whatnot.

ZORN REPLY --Government spending doesn't "work" only if you ascribe no value to the activity performed by the tasks performed. It "works"the same way spending by private companies "works," more or less, to stimulate the economy, move money and goods around.
Should the government not built roads and bridges? Not fund police and fire services? Are those jobs not "real" jobs? Are those wages not moved back into the private economy in the purchase of commercial goods, etc?
Where does the money come from to pay the partners at our great law firms? Our trading companies? Those resources have to come from somewhere, right?

ZORN REPLY -- You don't agree. I get that. What strawmen are you talking about? The idea behind compassionate conservatism is that conservatives seem to feel the need to remind people that they really do give a crap about the poor, that they really do understand the malignant effects of racism and are determined to help its victims overcome that. That they're not just economic Darwinists who think that "take a bath and get a job" is the answer to economic woes. That they don't distrust, fear and even hate those who are different from themselves -- gay people, atheists, Muslims, etc. That kind of thing. I suppose it's the opposite side of the coin of "pragmatic liberals." Don't tell me you don't understand that.

GREG J REPLY -- That's the message behind compassionate conservatism? Did anyone tell George W. Bush that? His definition of compassionate conservatism was "big, costly government programs with nice goals but little chance of succeeding." Exhibit A: No Child Left Behind. Bush's detractors sure don't buy that he cared about the good stuff you mentioned unless he got an image rehabilitation that I haven't found out about yet. One of the problems with the term is that it doesn't have a definition any two people can agree upon.

@Jimmy G - I don't want Obama, or any Democratic president, left unchecked by a Republican minority. My only point is that Obama chose not to fight for certain promises he made, which is a sign of good judgment on his part in those instances. On other issues, such as health care, he chose to fight even though it cost him a lot of political capital.

@Zorn re: "--Government spending doesn't "work" only if you ascribe no value to the activity performed by the tasks performed. It "works"the same way spending by private companies "works," more or less, to stimulate the economy, move money and goods around. Should the government not built roads and bridges? Not fund police and fire services? Are those jobs not "real" jobs? Are those wages not moved back into the private economy in the purchase of commercial goods, etc?
Where does the money come from to pay the partners at our great law firms? Our trading companies? Those resources have to come from somewhere, right?"

Come on, you know the topic is much narrower than all government spending. The topic is stimuli, the extra spending, just to spend, on top of anything that was rightly or wrongly deemed the province of "public good", the so called Keynesian pump-priming.

Sure bridges and roads need to be built, but not indiscriminately, just to build, just to spend money. If when the times were "good", when beneficial economic leverage of infrastructure was greater, it wasn't deemed a priority by those who pay - taxpayers, how on Earth would be it become so now?

Beyond the obvious and careless switch of context from Keynesian stimuli to government spending in general, you are saying that spending is what drives the economy. That shows a surprising lack of understanding of what lifts the standard of living. Production of things that someone is willing to buy, i.e. trade something they produced for, does, not spending as such. Make-work - remembering that no one was voluntarily willing to trade anything for that before the government stepped in - is waste, not production. We in aggregate voluntarily "buy" a certain basket of goods and services, including government services (through voting / agreeing to be taxed) that we feel optimizes our utility. Changing that basket - if you buy more roads a bridges, something else is bought less - moves it away from the optimum. That not only reduces aggregate utility today, but also tomorrow, because part of the basket shift is the shift investment into future production.

Following the theory of equivalence between public and private spending, the would come to the logical conclusion that a centralized command and control economy is the ideal. Experience suggests otherwise. Here are some thoughts on why that is:

When a private party makes an investment decision
a) The resources of the investors, and only investors, are at risk. They give up today's consumption for the possibility, but by no means certainty of greater consumption in the future.
b) Whatever the ultimate product/service stemming from the investment, all of its aspects, its pricing and ultimately its success vs. abandonment (or if possible, re-purposing) is determined by voluntary actions of the target audience. That's what on average directs resources into investments that raise the standard of living and away from those that do not.

Neither of these conditions are present in government spending, which is someone spending someone else's money, and without any reasonable measure of success that would stop good money from going after bad.

I am sure you actually already know that not all spending is equivalent. There is probably a reason you do not give a blank check, or even (I am guessing here) a substantial portion of your paycheck to you kids. Why you think that on average spending/investment decisions by bureaucratic/technocrats are equivalent to those by the original owners of the resources is beyond me.

ZORN REPLY -- I can't help you with this much more than I have, Boris. You're an ideologue -- anyone who rips so comprehensively and doggedly on government spending can only be described as such -- who sees a highly complex, interactive system in such black and white terms it's impossible to imagine a productive conversation. Your utter belief in the beneficial functioning of markets is ahistorical bordering on superstitious, which distinguishes it from the more balanced yet still conservative views espoused by others here.
Maybe someone else is interested in discussing this with you further. I'm not.

---The ending (conclusion?) says, "The American system of government can’t work if the two sides wage all-out war upon each other."
The problem, however, is that only one side is waging all-out war. The Democrats have been fighting a defensive battle since Reagan was elected. The Republican philosophy, as articulated by Grover Nordquist, on Sunday's "60 Minutes," is restore the government to its early-1900s status: no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no income tax, and unlimited corporate power. They have a goal, and they're heading toward it. Saying that "both sides are at fault" for the current political stalemate or that there are "extremists on both sides" ignores and trivializes the deep-core Republican agenda.

--"The problem, however, is that only one side is waging all-out war. The Democrats have been fighting a defensive battle since Reagan was elected. The Republican philosophy, as articulated by Grover Nordquist, on Sunday's "60 Minutes," is restore the government to its early-1900s status: no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no income tax, and unlimited corporate power. They have a goal, and they're heading toward it. Saying that "both sides are at fault" for the current political stalemate or that there are "extremists on both sides" ignores and trivializes the deep-core Republican agenda."

And don't forget about the Loch Ness Moster and the three-headed Elvis clones from Mars.

ZORN REPLY --Government spending doesn't "work" only if you ascribe no value to the activity performed by the tasks performed. It "works"the same way spending by private companies "works," more or less, to stimulate the economy, move money and goods around.
Should the government not built roads and bridges? Not fund police and fire services? Are those jobs not "real" jobs? Are those wages not moved back into the private economy in the purchase of commercial goods, etc?

MCN Comment: I heartily agree with you that the government should be building roads, bridges etc. and funding police and fire. These are externalities that the private sector has difficulty providing. We've been through this many times. Those are real jobs. A lot of other government jobs, though, aren't, and a) they are a drain on the economy and b) those people should be in value add jobs.

Regarding somebody or other's comment above about business lobbying, crony capitalism and conservatives, please be advised that corporations split their political contributions approximately 50/50 to both Dems and GOP. Unions and the plaintiff's bar, on the other other, donate almost exclusively to Democrats.

Re. ZORN REPLY -- I can't help you with this much more than I have, Boris. You're an ideologue -- anyone who rips so comprehensively and doggedly on government spending

Eric, that's a complete misrepresentation of what I said and of my point of view as a whole. Perhaps you didn't even read what I said. What I ripped in thread is the concept of stimulus spending as beneficial to the economy. Not all government spending, clearly allowing for its proper place, that is for what is known in economics as "public good". And also clearly allowing for the possibility that there are areas where we the line is gray and we can debate the extend of "public good" present and through the political process end up deciding where the line is drawn.

You also know very well that I am not an ideologue, because I don't start with arbitrary axioms. The conclusions I draw have scientific and historical-evidence based understanding of human nature as a foundation. That's why depending on a topic, you see me come out in agreement with conclusions from rather diverging ideologies.

I can only think that your "I can't help you here..." is a defensive response because you can not actually think through the defense of things like stimulus spending, but feel emotionally attached to it, in a religious sort of way. Otherwise you would have been able to contradict me by showing either the starting point or any step of my reasoning to be false. Sorry, but it seems you are avoiding the responsibility to think for yourself rather than just accept what others told you or you read.

Boris has it right, as usual. While building roads and bridges are real, necessary jobs, building more of them just for the sake of employing people is not productive. The point is that beyond a limited set of public/govt-funded jobs, the rest are exactly as Boris described: "make-work."

I didn't mean to suggest that Democrats are less responsible for crony capitalism than Republicans, or that business lobbying overall over time favors one party or the other. I was expressing my disappointment with Republicans politicians often not recognizing the difference between that and free market capitalism.

Please explain "unlimited corporate power" in your post. For other thing, whatever one may think of Grover Nordquist, that is not something that seems to be on his agenda. Moreover, increased corporate power and smaller government (shank back down to the provision of economic public good) seemed to be largely contradictory ideas. If you think otherwise, please reconcile them.

One piece of evidence, with regard to one measure of corporate power - the ability to shield itself from competition: In Europe, where the government(s) as a percentage of the economy is and has been bigger historically, the equivalent of the Dow list of the top corporations has had a markedly smaller turnover than the U.S. Dow (I believe the same as true of broader lists, such as S&P 500).

Whatever the GOP craziness (we would likely disagree on specifics, as my problem with GOP, in addition to the above-mentioned crony capitalism blind spot, is their social agenda), thanks to the alternate universe OWS demands and manifesto, the GOP appears a lot saner.

A Reader: You are making a statistical argument that doesn't do me much good. I don't live in the city. Those statistics are skewed by large numbers of people with low incomes in parts of the state with low property values and property taxes.My property taxes are in the 90th percentile nationally--as high as in the expensive NY suburbs and California. Illinois now has a major league income tax, with virtually no deductions. Sales tax: high. What else is there? And I've lived in Wisconsin and Illinois and fared MUCH better.

Just pointing out that there is crazy, and then there is really crazy. And when one craziness is opposed with an even greater lunacy, things get worse, not better.

The banker fraud comment seems non sequitur, as under wide tents (GOP, or OWS, or whatnot) we can always find a reasonably sane point or two, particularly when taken stand-alone (I am guessing even Nazis had sane sounding plants such as "point the unemployed to work").

Are you a conspiracy theorist? The last I knew Manhattan District Attorney didn't answer to the Feds and the person in that office, usually for political gain, was only too happy to go after the Wall Street people. And in fact, where fraud was proved, people went to jail. Does the "innocent until proven guilty" concept not apply to bankers?

Not to condone the irresponsible behavior, but irresponsible is not the same as criminal, else we would have to put the Fed, the Banking Committee and several Treasury Secretaries in jail. One can't really tell where those end and Wall Street begins. The solution lies not criminalisation of business risk taking (without which there is no economy), but disentanglement of the government and the financial sector. Not an easy to sell proposition, mind you, since the entanglement allows the government to send checks to whomever they want to favor while obscuring the cost to the rest of the country.

--Re: " While building roads and bridges are real, necessary jobs, building more of them just for the sake of employing people is not productive. The point is that beyond a limited set of public/govt-funded jobs, the rest are exactly as Boris described: "make-work."

Our bridges are crumbling (nation-wide), so are roads. How would investing in this infrastructure be "make-work"? Like the CCC in the Depression, or the WPA, which fed many families & allowed them to keep their homes (families like my mother's and father's?)? Also, it has been proven that the most efficient way for the Govt to stimulate the economy would be to extend Unemployment benefits, in a time of need like this.

What is your evidence of the bridges and roads crumbling nation-wide, rather than having normal wear and tear, already budgeted to be maintained in the normal course of things, or abandoned because they are bridges and roads to nowhere built as part of the housing bubble or as pork projects?

Where is you evidence that government stimuli (do you even understand the theory of it?), that is redirection of someone else's private money from profit oriented investments to projects deemed good by a those whose motives and interests are other than creating value, let alone extra public works? There is no such evidence. Even devoted stimuli worshipers claim that there was no effect, because they say FDR didn't spend enough. Not until he spend a lot on WW2, they say. But then again, they think the two current wars are a drag on the economy.The economy must be somehow differentiating between fighting Nazis vs. Bathists or Taliban.

You are making claims for which there is no proof, not even any weight of evidence.

Government spending does stimuate the economy. I am tired of the fantasy being spun by the Republicans that all you have to do is cut spending and all of the country's problems will disappear. Bridges and roads are crumbling, in fact, there are some in the city of Chicago that are badly in need of repair. When the Republicans decide to reside in the realm of reality, only then will I vote for their party.

Everything I said in my last reply to LizH applies to your post, which offers no real evidence, proof or logic. The fact that some roads and bridges in the city of Chicago badly need repair is a non sequitur (in reverse, as it is a premise that has no relationship to your generalized conclusions).

Restating that government spending stimulates the economy adds zero evidence to support it. Follow the trail of money (and actually resources that have to move with them) and explain to me how printing paper money would contribute to wealth creation. Carefully think through what government stimuli spending really is:

a) It is resource redistribution, not creation. So if someone is on the positive, recipient side of a stimulus, someone has to be on the negative side. If someone's consumption goes up, someone else's consumption and investment has to go down.
(This is not even a neutral transaction, because on average government economic decisions are worse than the sum of private decisions of all the consumers and producers)

b) It is done in a deceptive way, not by taxing some and giving it to others (the zero sum game is too obvious then), but by printing money, that is by devaluing savings (= investments) of everyone who has savings. The devaluation is not immediately apparent - it will not show up in the government inflation statistics until later (if at all, as it might mask natural deflation), when these savings are used for consumption. So for a period of time, there is an appearance of added wealth - a bubble. In another thread I used an example of Paul being out shopping while Peter robs his savings and goes shopping with them too. For some period of time Paul doesn't know he has been robbed so it seems like the shopping activity increased. But when he learns, he cuts back, the bubble busts. And again, we are not just back to zero again, but worse off, because Peter was spending someone else money, he wasn't as careful and frugal as Paul would be.

That's how I see government stimuli "work". Do you have an alternate scenario?

--P.S. re:" am tired of the fantasy being spun by the Republicans that all you have to do is cut spending and all of the country's problems will disappear"

I am not one and I don't speak for Republicans, but that seems to be a blatant straw-man, as I haven't heard Republicans say cutting government spending solves all problems. (The reverse - "Fantasy by Democrats that all you have to do to solve problems is through [someone else's] money at it" would actually be closer to truth)

Cutting spending may help solve the budget problem. It may free up resources to be put to use by on average much more productive decisions of private individuals (i.e. the market). But, per my own posts in this thread, it is hardly the only thing that needs to be done, perhaps not even the most important thing.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.